Hi Reinier,

6 patches for repository http://darcs.net/releases/branch-2.5:

Petr thinks that issue1290 does not belong in the Darcs 2.5
release because it's so late in the release cycle.  While I
find it a bit regrettable, I'm inclined to agree to him :-/

What do you think?

Thu Aug  5 13:45:59 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Accept issue1290: darcs diff --index support.

Fri Aug 13 18:50:23 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Fix issue1290 test.
  I forgot that we count backwards.  I also try to introduce some asymmetry here
  to make it a bit clearer we're not accidentally passing.

Fri Aug 13 18:52:57 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Resolve issue1290: support diff --index.
  
  While the matching code knew how to identify the context and
  fluff patches matchFirstPatchset and matchSecondPatchset),
  it did not actually know how to unapply them (getFirstMatch
  and getPartialSecondMatch).

Fri Aug 13 17:47:59 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Move Darcs.Match module-specific haddock to module level.
  Also correct last_match to secondMatch.

Fri Aug 13 18:10:53 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Improve module-level documentation for Darcs.Match.

Fri Aug 13 18:22:44 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Reframe Darcs.Match.matchFirstPatchset documentation.
  This says the same thing but hopefully makes it easier to grasp.


___________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
___________________________________________________________

Attachments

• accept-issue1290_-darcs-diff-__index-support_.dpatch
• unnamed

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 17:56:09 +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> Fri Aug 13 18:10:53 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
>   * Improve module-level documentation for Darcs.Match.
> 
> Fri Aug 13 18:22:44 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
>   * Reframe Darcs.Match.matchFirstPatchset documentation.
>   This says the same thing but hopefully makes it easier to grasp.

Note, while I wrote these haddocks with a very confident tone,
I'm not actually sure I've got it right.  Be careful!

I'm particularly prone to polarity bugs, the kind where you
mix up left/right, true/false, etc...

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
For a faster response, please try +44 (0)1273 64 2905.

Hi,

Eric Kow <bugs@darcs.net> writes:
> Petr thinks that issue1290 does not belong in the Darcs 2.5
> release because it's so late in the release cycle.  While I
> find it a bit regrettable, I'm inclined to agree to him :-/
as a consolation, I have reviewed the patch. Please lift the duplicated
unpullLastN to a common place (unless I missed some difference, in which
case it may be better to rename them) and I'll apply (to HEAD, pending
tests).

Yours,
   Petr.

Same as before but with 'Resolve issue1290' amended as requested.

6 patches for repository http://darcs.net/releases/branch-2.5:

Thu Aug  5 13:45:59 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Accept issue1290: darcs diff --index support.

Fri Aug 13 18:50:23 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Fix issue1290 test.
  I forgot that we count backwards.  I also try to introduce some asymmetry here
  to make it a bit clearer we're not accidentally passing.

Fri Aug 13 19:10:25 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Resolve issue1290: support diff --index.
  
  While the matching code knew how to identify the context and
  fluff patches matchFirstPatchset and matchSecondPatchset),
  it did not actually know how to unapply them (getFirstMatch
  and getPartialSecondMatch).

Fri Aug 13 17:47:59 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Move Darcs.Match module-specific haddock to module level.
  Also correct last_match to secondMatch.

Fri Aug 13 18:10:53 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Improve module-level documentation for Darcs.Match.

Fri Aug 13 18:22:44 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Reframe Darcs.Match.matchFirstPatchset documentation.
  This says the same thing but hopefully makes it easier to grasp.


___________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
___________________________________________________________

Attachments

• accept-issue1290_-darcs-diff-__index-support_.dpatch
• unnamed

This patch bundle (with 6 patches) was just applied to the repository http://darcs.net/.
This message was brought to you by DarcsWatch
http://darcswatch.nomeata.de/repo_http:__darcs.net_.html#bundle-6b80f96429e62ddc4282873f75be0450e2ffd1f1

Op vrijdag 13 augustus 2010 19:56 schreef Eric Kow:
> Petr thinks that issue1290 does not belong in the Darcs 2.5
> release because it's so late in the release cycle.  While I
> find it a bit regrettable, I'm inclined to agree to him :-/
> 
> What do you think?

The reason I kept this in the 2.5 milestone was the issue title which contains 
the word "broken", implying a regression of some kind to me. Reading the 
replies to the issue, this seems not to be the case.

Still I see no reason why this couldn't go into 2.5. The fix seems simple 
enough. Are there risks in including this that I'm forgetting to consider?

Reinier

Just following up on this to say this was accepted into Darcs 2.5 due
the release cycle looking like it'll be a bit longer and also to there
being minimal impact on the rest of the code.  See issue1290 for link to
chatlog

This patch bundle (with 6 patches) was just applied to the repository http://darcs.net/reviewed.
This message was brought to you by DarcsWatch
http://darcswatch.nomeata.de/repo_http:__darcs.net_reviewed.html#bundle-6b80f96429e62ddc4282873f75be0450e2ffd1f1